In fact that is not the conclusion of the paper, but that there was some Lusitanian influence in Galicia but that there was an IE layer previous to Celtic that was not Lusitanian.

The conclusion:

Quote

Summing up, the nature of the evidence makes it difficult to provide a detailed linguistic history of ancient Callaecia. However, by analyzing the various sources available, a global picture seems to emerge in which the Celts constituted the last layer of Indo-Europeans to come to this area. But what was there before? Obviously there were populations related to the Lusitanians. But only that? More investigation is needed before we can safely state that Lusitanian or Lusitanian-like populations are not the oldest Indo-European layer in this area. Leaving aside theonymy, which can be easily borrowed, Callaecia does not seem to have so much in common with Lusitania as is usually assumed. A very tentative explanation would be that a previous Indo-European layer was later influenced by the Lusitanian populations in the southern region and that that mixture was what the Celts found when they finally reached this westernmost region of Europe.

Quote

Curchin, for instance, see 2 different prehistoric IE non Celtic layers previous to "Iberian Colonization" in SE Spain, it is just going insane...

Not insane at all. Makes sense if we see

1) Stelae people arrive, speaking Italo-Celtic.2) Late BB people arrive from S Gaul, speaking something a bit closer to Celtic. 3) Iberes arrive c. 2200 BC (La Bastida). Their culture (Argaric) collapses c. 1600 BC, but a remnant of its people remains somewhere in the area and later rises on the tide of trade with the Phoenicians. The language starts to spread along the coast c. 500 BC.

Which paper by Churchin are you thinking of? I see Toponimia antigua de Contestania y Edetania, Lucentum 28 (2009), 69-74. He just says:

Quote

...what that stands out is the large proportion of Indo-European names, which must represent one or more unknown Indo-European language, related with a settlement of the Indo-European speakers, perhaps before the arrival of the Iberians. the presence extensive Indo-European names in regions previously Iberian considered, has already been noted by Villar (2000) ..

Related to, in the sense of influenced, but in the conclusions you can also read

For the linguistic and cultural history of this region it is important to remark that the linguistic characteristics of its god names, which for the most part clearly point to a link with the southern regions in the Lusitania province, do not reappear in personal names. If we have a look at the personal names of Lusitania we will see that at least some of the characteristics of the god names, for instance, the presence of 'strange' diphthongs and sequences of vowels reappear in personal names. I will not go now in detail into the debated problem whether a Celtic-like phonetic 'infection'154 is attested in Lusitania, but the fact is that while we frequently have variants of personal names with that infection or infection-like sequences in the onomastics of the Vettones155 and other peoples of Lusitania, there are virtually no corresponding examples among the peoples of Callaecia

What we have is an influence attested in Theonims, easily borrowed, but not in anthroponims. In other words, a religious/cultural influence, not a linguistic or pollitical one.

I said insane because they build theories of layers of different languages based just on aa few words dubiously transcripted in Classical sources.

Here is an excerpt from Zsuzanna K. Zoffman from Human remains from the kurgan at Hajdunanas-Tedej-Lyukas-halom and an anthropological outline of the Pit-Grave ethnic groups that supports a mixed population of Yamnaya people that might have implications for R1b and proto-Beaker people.

This is talking about the physical types found in Yamnaya graves that are different from the common steppe Cro-magnon type.

'Besides them, the representatives of a more gracile variant with narrower cranium and hypsiconch orbits also occur in the material from the Carpathian basin (Marcsik 1979; Zoffman 2000; 2004; 2006). At the same time, leptodolichomorhous (gracile Mediterranean) and brachymorphous type variants appear at the Brailita Pit-Grave site in Moldova (Necrasov and Cristescu 1957). According to the Romanian authors (Necrasov and Cristescu 1957, 1973; Haas and Maximilian 1958), the Cro-magnon type arrived from the east , while the gracile Mediterranean and the brachycranial types represent the autochthonous population.'

As the lone Romance language speaks in eastern Europe, Romania and Moldova are linguistic enigmas. I have always found this interesting as the Roman occupation there was relatively short. It would not surprise me one bit if the ancient DNA of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people turns out to be heavily R1b.

Credit where it's due Mike. You have stuck at this after it defeated me.

Thanks. I found this in a British Archaeological Reports publication (2011) by Archaeopress. The actual title of this particular series was Kurgan Studies: An environmental and archaeological multiproxy study of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zone. Zoffman's was just one of the papers in there. There is a lot of detailed info on the Hungarian kurgans, though much of it is about soil, mineral composition, groundwater properties, etc. I'll post more if they seem helpful to our discussions here.

As the lone Romance language speaks in eastern Europe, Romania and Moldova are linguistic enigmas. I have always found this interesting as the Roman occupation there was relatively short. It would not surprise me one bit if the ancient DNA of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people turns out to be heavily R1b.

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I don't see how that would solve the Romance mystery, which also interested me. I couldn't see the explanation, so I ducked it.

Indeed there are Northwest Indo-European, Balto-Slavic, Proto-Baltic, Middle Slavic, Dialectal Baltic, Palaeo-Germanic, Early Proto-Germanic, Late Proto-Germanic etc. loanwords in Finnic and Saami. And yet we have only few late loanwords between Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

Good points. I guess the reservations I have are about the possibility of contact between Balto-Slavic or pre-Balto-Slavic and pre-Germanic back to the east. I guess you are saying they were not adjacent to each other in the Steppes region. Still, if the Saami had influence on Proto-Germanic, that would kind of force the high probability area for pre-Germanic to Scandinavia. Is the influence specifically Saami-like, or is it more generally Uralic?

Is there any chance the Saami influence could have occurred just south of the Kola Peninsula in Russia? I see Saami is classified as Uralic so the implication is they came from the east. There are Uralic speakers found all the way down to the Ukraine. I don't know how they got there but there might have other places for pre-Germanic influence from Uralic other than Scandinavia.

What do you mean by "Paleo-Germanic"? Germanic wouldn't have been spoken in the Stone Age.

2. Celtic language cannot have spread to Western Europe until the first millennium BC, because it was developing adjacent to Germanic, which was developing adjacent to Finnic and Saami.

This is interesting. I think you are implying that Proto-Celtic developed in the northern half of Germany because it had to be adjacent to pre/proto-Germanic which had to be adjacent next to the Finnic and Saami speakers.

What does this say about Italic? Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.

As the lone Romance language speaks in eastern Europe, Romania and Moldova are linguistic enigmas. I have always found this interesting as the Roman occupation there was relatively short. It would not surprise me one bit if the ancient DNA of the Cucuteni-Tripolye people turns out to be heavily R1b.

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I don't see how that would solve the Romance mystery, which also interested me. I couldn't see the explanation, so I ducked it.

If you did know History by a first hand and not by second third or n one, you would know that Romanians formed themselves in the right bank of Danube and not on the left one that Romans abandoned in the 3rd century. They are then the descendants of the Balkan Latin speaking people, like the others submerged by the Slav invasion like Dalmatians and the now mostly assimilated Vlachs etc. If you did know a little bit Albanian language, you did know how many Latin words entered that language, almost those you find in English: 55%.

What does this say about Italic? Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.

No it doesn't Mike. Picture one long linguistic continuum from what is now Germany to the foot of Italy. Jaska is simply concerned with one contact edge of this - the most northerly. Italic was developing in Italy. No linguist has ever suggested otherwise. Proto-Celtic seems to have developed north of the Alps - not necessarily actually in Germany.

It is a complicated story, because groups split off at various times during the process of linguistic development.

What does this say about Italic? Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.

No it doesn't Mike. Picture one long linguistic continuum from what is now Germany to the foot of Italy. Jaska is simply concerned with one contact edge of this - the most northerly. Italic was developing in Italy. No linguist has ever suggested otherwise. Proto-Celtic seems to have developed north of the Alps - not necessarily actually in Germany.

It is a complicated story, because groups split off at various times during the process of linguistic development.

I understand the core areas for these languages expanded (although perhaps only in one or two directions) as they developed.

... but on the language tree, they come from the same larger branch. I take it you accept there was an Italo-Celtic IE dialect from which both Celtic and Italic grew out of. Did Italic and Celtic both branch from the same area north of the Alps? If we think the PIE homeland is further east, then more than likely the source branch for Italo-Celtic would be east of Germany too, maybe not all the way to the homeland, but east. This should have been before Hallstatt, right?

It's the layering and timing of the layering of the branches that I'd like to further understand to see how they might overlay with P312 and U106. There are some nice correlations that much of P312 ended up in Celtic regions, but some, like U152, were in Italic whereas U106 ended up in Germanic. The Germanic language "lineage" broke away early from the Centum IE lineages that would give birth to Italo-Celtic.

Does anyone think the pre-Germanic dialect of IE originated in Scandinavia? Of course, that's a loaded question if the PIE homeland is far from Scandinavia. Some form of pre-Germanic IE dialect at some point in time had to be an immigrant into Scandinavai. Would that immigration more likely come from the North Sea, such as by the Bell Beakers, or by some culture such as Globular Amphora.

Does anyone think Italic languages broke away at the beginning of Hallstat? or was that too late?

Yes that all fits with the archaeology. I see pre-Germanic speakers being sucked into Scandinavia in the Bronze Age when the climate was right for farming there, then moving south into Jastorf when the climate turned bad for farming further north. Proto-Germantic strictly speaking (i.e. the language immediately preceding the break-up into North, East and West Germanic) was therefore developed in Jastorf, which probably displaced some Celtic speakers. The expansion of the Germani appears to have been at the expense of Celts. But this was the extreme edge of the vast Celtic-speaking zone.

There are also Early Proto-Germanic, Late Proto-Germanic and Northwest Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami, so Jastorf could have represented only an extension of the Scandinavian homeland.

Quote from: Jean M

Celtiberian is the most archaic form of Celtic, but it is generally seen as Celtic. I don't see any problem with that. As I said, Lusitanian appears earlier. It presumably arrived with Bell Beaker. Later there were waves of Gauls into parts of Iberia, bringing their own Celtic. In Galicia they overlaid a previous linguistic layer similar to Lusitanian.

1) Stelae people arrive, speaking Italo-Celtic.2) Late BB people arrive from S Gaul, speaking something a bit closer to Celtic. 3) Iberes arrive c. 2200 BC (La Bastida). Their culture (Argaric) collapses c. 1600 BC, but a remnant of its people remains somewhere in the area and later rises on the tide of trade with the Phoenicians. The language starts to spread along the coast c. 500 BC.

There may well have been many Indo-European languages expanding to the Southwest Europe; I find the evidence of Luján Martínez quite convincing. However, the datings you propose seem far too early. If Celtic proper (including Celtiberian) arrived there only close to the Common Era, and Lusitanian (a separate daughter language of Italo-Celtic?) somewhat earlier, we still have no particular reason to locate any Indo-European languages (some unknown IE language?) in Spain earlier than in the beginning of the first millennium BC.

Quote from: Mikewww

Good points. I guess the reservations I have are about the possibility of contact between Balto-Slavic or pre-Balto-Slavic and pre-Germanic back to the east. I guess you are saying they were not adjacent to each other in the Steppes region. Still, if the Saami had influence on Proto-Germanic, that would kind of force the high probability area for pre-Germanic to Scandinavia. Is the influence specifically Saami-like, or is it more generally Uralic?

It is more a question of Germanic influence in Saami and Finnic, less has been presented to the other direction. But the new datings say that Proto-Saami arrived in Scandinavia from Southern Finland and Karelia only within the last 2000 years. As we now follow the spread of Saami and Finnic from Upper Volga (~2nd millennium BC) to the Ladoga and Ingria regions (respectively; ~ beginning of the 1st millennium BC), we could locate the Pre-Germanic speakers in Northeastern Europe, escaping from the expansion of the Uralic speakers. On the other hand, it has been argued that the names of the great lakes in Sweden are so early (productive heteroclitic stem or something like that) that they must have appeared soon after the Northwest IE stage, so the Germanic branch should have been there since the Corded Ware Culture. And we probably cannot pull Celtic to the Northeastern Europe, so the Scandinavian homeland for Germanic seems the plausible compromise. And we can explain the Germanic presence in the coasts of Gulf of Finland in the framework of the Nordic Bronze Culture.

Quote from: Mikewww

Is there any chance the Saami influence could have occurred just south of the Kola Peninsula in Russia? I see Saami is classified as Uralic so the implication is they came from the east. There are Uralic speakers found all the way down to the Ukraine. I don't know how they got there but there might have other places for pre-Germanic influence from Uralic other than Scandinavia.

Yes, it is possible, but then the continuous adjacency of Germanic and Celtic prevents us to pull Germanic too far east.

Quote from: Mikewww

What do you mean by "Paleo-Germanic"? Germanic wouldn't have been spoken in the Stone Age.

Palaeo means 'old', and it is used by Petri Kallio about the stage preceding Early Proto-Germanic vowel change, which then precedes Late Proto-Germanic Grimm's law etc. Something like: PaG *kāpas > EPG *kōpas > LPG *χōfaz 'hoof'.

Quote from: Mikewww

This is interesting. I think you are implying that Proto-Celtic developed in the northern half of Germany because it had to be adjacent to pre/proto-Germanic which had to be adjacent next to the Finnic and Saami speakers.

What does this say about Italic? Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.

As far as Italo-Celtic is seen as a branch without clearly later contacts within it, we don't need to locate Italic to Germany. A reasonable chain would be: Germanic (Scandinavia, incl. Denmark) – Celtic (Germany) – Italic (around the Alps, incl. Northern Italy).

Yes that all fits with the archaeology. I see pre-Germanic speakers being sucked into Scandinavia in the Bronze Age when the climate was right for farming there, then moving south into Jastorf when the climate turned bad for farming further north. Proto-Germantic strictly speaking (i.e. the language immediately preceding the break-up into North, East and West Germanic) was therefore developed in Jastorf, which probably displaced some Celtic speakers. The expansion of the Germani appears to have been at the expense of Celts. But this was the extreme edge of the vast Celtic-speaking zone.

There are also Early Proto-Germanic, Late Proto-Germanic and Northwest Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami, so Jastorf could have represented only an extension of the Scandinavian homeland.

This is what I'm getting it. If the core pre-Germanic dialect came into Scandinavia early, well before Jastorf, then the correlation of R1b-U106 to pre-Germanic appears weak. I can't find a lot of U106 diversity in in Scandinavia. I know this is subject to all the vagaries of STR variance (and MJost might say something different), but I just don't see it. I'll go back and look at that again a little more in depth.

U106 just looks more continental to me, which means a critical carrier for the core of pre-Germanic IE into Scandinavia would have probably been R1a1. U106, in this scenario, would have just come into play in Jastorf, perhaps from a Hallstatt Celtic influence. It must have been a strong (populous) influence or somehow gathered a lot of growth in its paternal lineages. This is why I have a hard time decoupling U106 with pre-Germanic.

What does this say about Italic? Perhaps Richard R can comment. Italic had to develop from the same base that Proto-Celtic came from so it follows that Italic was up in Germany as well.

No it doesn't Mike. Picture one long linguistic continuum from what is now Germany to the foot of Italy. Jaska is simply concerned with one contact edge of this - the most northerly. Italic was developing in Italy. No linguist has ever suggested otherwise. Proto-Celtic seems to have developed north of the Alps - not necessarily actually in Germany.

It is a complicated story, because groups split off at various times during the process of linguistic development.

I understand the core areas for these languages expanded (although perhaps only in one or two directions) as they developed.

... but on the language tree, they come from the same larger branch. I take it you accept there was an Italo-Celtic IE dialect from which both Celtic and Italic grew out of. Did Italic and Celtic both branch from the same area north of the Alps? If we think the PIE homeland is further east, then more than likely the source branch for Italo-Celtic would be east of Germany too, maybe not all the way to the homeland, but east. This should have been before Hallstatt, right?

It's the layering and timing of the layering of the branches that I'd like to further understand to see how they might overlay with P312 and U106. There are some nice correlations that much of P312 ended up in Celtic regions, but some, like U152, were in Italic whereas U106 ended up in Germanic. The Germanic language "lineage" broke away early from the Centum IE lineages that would give birth to Italo-Celtic.

Does anyone think the pre-Germanic dialect of IE originated in Scandinavia? Of course, that's a loaded question if the PIE homeland is far from Scandinavia. Some form of pre-Germanic IE dialect at some point in time had to be an immigrant into Scandinavai. Would that immigration more likely come from the North Sea, such as by the Bell Beakers, or by some culture such as Globular Amphora.

Does anyone think Italic languages broke away at the beginning of Hallstat? or was that too late?

Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.

As for Italic, there are two forms: Q-Italic and P-Italic. Q-Italic in its earliest forms (proto-Italic? proto-Italic-Celtic?) may have been spoken by the Copper Age groups that spread metallurgy via the Ligurian Sea into Southern France. They may be responsible for some of the Italic-like place names in Iberia and the Nordwestblock. P-Italic may be as early as the eastern Bell Beaker people and as late as the Urnfield period (incl. proto-Villanovans). Hallstatt is probably too late, but I think we will have a hard time distinguishing between Urnfield and Hallstatt groups.

Having said all of that, the origin of Q-Italic and P-Italic is as lively a debate as that of Q-Celtic / P-Celtic.

... but on the language tree, they come from the same larger branch. I take it you accept there was an Italo-Celtic IE dialect from which both Celtic and Italic grew out of.

That's correct.

Quote

Did Italic and Celtic both branch from the same area north of the Alps?

No. That section of my website is down now, but I think you still have access to the illustration for the Stelae People. See the black line going up the Danube to the Carpathian Basin. Picture that as Proto-Italo-Celtic speakers. See the red/pink line branching off to Italy and on to Iberia. That represents the early breakaway of a group of Italo-Celtic speakers. They end up speaking languages that are Italo-Celtic (like Ligurian) shading into Italic in Italy south of the Ligurians. As I said Proto-Italic proper developed in Italy. Meanwhile the black line continues on to the head of the Danube, where we can picture Proto-Celtic developing. It spreads north and into the Isles with Bell Beaker.

... but on the language tree, they come from the same larger branch. I take it you accept there was an Italo-Celtic IE dialect from which both Celtic and Italic grew out of.

That's correct.

Quote

Did Italic and Celtic both branch from the same area north of the Alps?

No. That section of my website is down now, but I think you still have access to the illustration for the Stelae People. See the black line going up the Danube to the Carpathian Basin. Picture that as Proto-Italo-Celtic speakers. See the red/pink line branching off to Italy and on to Iberia. That represents the early breakaway of a group of Italo-Celtic speakers. They end up speaking languages that are Italo-Celtic (like Ligurian) shading into Italic in Italy south of the Ligurians. As I said Proto-Italic proper developed in Italy. Meanwhile the black line continues on to the head of the Danube, where we can picture Proto-Celtic developing. It spreads north and into the Isles with Bell Beaker.

This is what I'm getting it. If the core pre-Germanic dialect came into Scandinavia early, well before Jastorf, then the correlation of R1b-U106 to pre-Germanic appears weak. I can't find a lot of U106 diversity in in Scandinavia.

Not exactly. I mention David Anthony's theory that the pre-Germanic speakers moved north up the Dniester from Usatovo. Usatovo is on one of his illustrations that I reuse. (Yamnaya migrations 3100-2600 BC, mapped by David Anthony.)

Not exactly. I mention David Anthony's theory that the pre-Germanic speakers moved north up the Dniester from Usatovo. Usatovo is on one of his illustrations that I reuse. (Yamnaya migrations 3100-2600 BC, mapped by David Anthony.)

Yes, I see the Dniester starts up on the east side of the Carpathians, very near the border with Poland. The Globular Amphora culture might just be an extension for a movement of people SE to NW along this line.

It appears to be a coincidence of data that Myres shows U106 with highest diversity in Poland and the Baltic states.

If Celtic proper (including Celtiberian) arrived there only close to the Common Era, and Lusitanian (a separate daughter language of Italo-Celtic?) somewhat earlier, we still have no particular reason to locate any Indo-European languages (some unknown IE language?) in Spain earlier than in the beginning of the first millennium BC.

My tree of IE, adapted from Don Ringe et al shows the break-up of Proto-Italo-Celtic c. 2500 BC. This language was very close to PIE. It is old.

Celtiberian is a Q-Celtic form, which I am assuming arrived in Iberia around 2200 BC with a new style of Bell Beaker which appeared in central Spain and has affinities with eastern BB. Lusitanian is presumably the descendant of Proto-Italo-Celtic which arrived in Portugal c. 3000 BC. P-Celtic arrived in Iberia with influxes of Gauls c. 500 BC.

Yes that all fits with the archaeology. I see pre-Germanic speakers being sucked into Scandinavia in the Bronze Age when the climate was right for farming there, then moving south into Jastorf when the climate turned bad for farming further north. Proto-Germantic strictly speaking (i.e. the language immediately preceding the break-up into North, East and West Germanic) was therefore developed in Jastorf, which probably displaced some Celtic speakers. The expansion of the Germani appears to have been at the expense of Celts. But this was the extreme edge of the vast Celtic-speaking zone.

There are also Early Proto-Germanic, Late Proto-Germanic and Northwest Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami, so Jastorf could have represented only an extension of the Scandinavian homeland.

This is what I'm getting it. If the core pre-Germanic dialect came into Scandinavia early, well before Jastorf, then the correlation of R1b-U106 to pre-Germanic appears weak. I can't find a lot of U106 diversity in in Scandinavia. I know this is subject to all the vagaries of STR variance (and MJost might say something different), but I just don't see it. I'll go back and look at that again a little more in depth.

U106 just looks more continental to me, which means a critical carrier for the core of pre-Germanic IE into Scandinavia would have probably been R1a1. U106, in this scenario, would have just come into play in Jastorf, perhaps from a Hallstatt Celtic influence. It must have been a strong (populous) influence or somehow gathered a lot of growth in its paternal lineages. This is why I have a hard time decoupling U106 with pre-Germanic.

I understand the diversity argument. But I wonder about the affect of the population movements on diversity - would the addition of migrating U106 to an existing eastern U106 have impacted the diversity there enough to give a false impression of origin?

Haplotype diversity does not equall origin. If you want proof of that then study any of the private SNPs and their modal haplotypes.Modal haplotype and SNP go hand in hand. If you make the assumption that we are all descended from a single SNP like U106 then you have to think that at one time U106 was a private one.So you will all find the answers that you are looking for by studying them. This is only my opinion.

Well I didn't want to be picky, but Koch recently argued that Tartessian is Celtic, and if we assume that the language which left the -ossos and -inthus place-names is Pelasgian, then some linguists argue that was Luwian.

Just one point about Celtic...there is no scenario I can think of where proto-Celtic or Q-Celtic is spread towards the west as late as the 1st millennium BC. Irish L21 just doesn't allow for it no matter which way you look at it.